I think the argument is that what you are doing won't work. Here is a defintion of a crazy person:

Someone that does that same thing over and over while expecting different results.

You don't always get the same results, regardless. Plus, you have already admitted to positions that I consider successes. Usually people as dishonest as you are booted long before it goes this far.

Logged

"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas. Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me

"The Implication.tm" Not my implication, of course, because you don't have the factual backing to actually accuse me of it. Not your interpretation, of course, because that would mean taking responsibility for you thoughts. Instead it's something metaphysical, something supernatural, something outside of time[1] - The Implication!tm Where does The Implicationtm exist? How did it come to be? What relationship does it have to the natural world? Silly questions for the closed-minded, those...

Seriously, Omen, don't use this kind of weaseling bullshit. You interpreted me as implying that you should totally disengage out of fear of an instance of failure. When asked why, you say it's "The Implicationtm". That's a dodge.

(as a side-note, perhaps I'm being irrational in trying to reason with you in this manner...I don't know)

You're not providing a reason to not engage, other than JST not possess the capacity to understand. IE Due to intelligence, education, sanity etc.

Okay. Misinterpretation, albeit a reasonable one. Still doesn't align with the text of what you're trying to clarify, but w/e. That is not even one of the reasons to change goals here. Understanding doesn't happen equally under all conditions. If you want it to happen, then you should try to find conditions that are amenable to it. I havn't seen you even entertain that idea on here before. Perhaps I'm in error on that point; I stand to be corrected.

Are you claiming the inverse of what I've done to JST, not ask people to support their own claims or not point out when they have not?

...how would that...be...a claim? Oh fuck it, I'm done with expecting coherent grammar. Yes, Omen, that is what I'm suggesting...sort of. I'm suggesting that it not be the first response. I'm suggesting that it's a lot less effective from someone who's just an enemy than it is from someone with whom one has a rapport. What is the nature of the rapport you built with Jst before holding his feet to the fire?

You're not providing a reason to not engage, other than JST not possess the capacity to understand. IE Due to intelligence, education, sanity etc.

Okay. Misinterpretation, albeit a reasonable one. Still doesn't align with the text of what you're trying to clarify, but w/e. That is not even one of the reasons to change goals here. Understanding doesn't happen equally under all conditions. If you want it to happen, then you should try to find conditions that are amenable to it. I havn't seen you even entertain that idea on here before. Perhaps I'm in error on that point; I stand to be corrected.

Ok, I'm starting to get annoyed.

You're not referencing real examples, yet you keep insinuating there are other options, but I can't get any 'other' options clearly set out.

Are you claiming the inverse of what I've done to JST, not ask people to support their own claims or not point out when they have not?

...how would that...be...a claim? Oh fuck it, I'm done with expecting coherent grammar. Yes, Omen, that is what I'm suggesting...sort of. I'm suggesting that it not be the first response. I'm suggesting that it's a lot less effective from someone who's just an enemy than it is from someone with whom one has a rapport. What is the nature of the rapport you built with Jst before holding his feet to the fire?

Just casually responding to statements he was making about biblical theology, he was building a typical cherry picked rationale towards what he wants to believe. I was questioning the consistency of which, which lead down a predictable road of point and counter point. It became immediately obvious that JST didn't possess the formal education to understand. I lowered my expectations accordingly, later on JST started making claims about science that went as predictably poor. JST began to become threatened by me and accusatory, which annoyed me and probably fueled my responses to him. Many many equivocating and dodging posts later.. here we are.

I posted a link to an example of what I'm talking about, I would love if you could take that example and tell me exactly what is wrong with it.

Logged

"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas. Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me

Usually people as dishonest as you are booted long before it goes this far.

And here you must take yet another jab.

And the "results" were that I was leaving and almost wholly becuse of you. Is that the goal for which you strive?

Is lying for the benefit of your emotional security the goal which you strive?

Logged

"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas. Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me

"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas. Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me

I do not abandon your questions, I abandon you. The same as the other poster in this thread has done.

This is equivocating, you abandon support for your claims repeatedly with me or without me being involved. Hence, dozens have already pointed it out.

Logged

"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas. Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me

"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas. Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me

Jstwebbrowsing, I recommend you talk to someone[1] about a one-on-one debate. Right now your credibility is... well, it isn't. That's the problem.If you can stand on your own against one single member without dodging, lying, et cetera,[2] I think it just might be the first step to getting it back.Assuming, of course, you want it back.

I do not abandon your questions, I abandon you. The same as the other poster in this thread has done.

This is equivocating, you abandon support for your claims repeatedly with me or without me being involved. Hence, dozens have already pointed it out.

Show me where. Show me where I've had problems in which you were not involved.

Your desire to not be honest with me and to lie to my face, isn't examples of me having problems with you.

You have already admitted to lying for the shear fact that you wanted to get back at me, which I quoted you directly in this thread and contrasted it against what you claimed you said.. which again didn't match. ( strange that )

Logged

"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas. Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me

Jstwebbrowsing, I recommend you talk to someone[1] about a one-on-one debate. Right now your credibility is... well, it isn't. That's the problem.If you can stand on your own against one single member without dodging, lying, et cetera, I think it just might be the first step to getting it back.Assuming, of course, you want it back.

Well I have recently watched some debates and they are able to stay on the topic of proving one specific point without having to prove everything around it is true. For example, they could argue Jesus was resurrected without having to go back and prove God exists.

This is what I need to address before I could debate.

« Last Edit: May 17, 2012, 03:35:59 PM by Jstwebbrowsing »

Logged

Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

One-on-one debates focus on one subject and one subject alone. For the sake of discussion, it can be assumed that YHWH is real or that the biblical Jesus is real or even that Leprechauns are actually purple unicorns. It doesn't matter.However, you can't, say, discuss whether the biblical Jesus really did come back from the dead whilst assuming that the Bible is 100% true or assuming that the biblical Jesus came back from the grave. That's just stupid.

Logged

My names are many, yet I am One.-Orion, son of Fire and Light, Sol Invictus.

You'd have to argue that the bible is reliably evident of the event because of correlating information, such as references to contemporary historical accounts. ( of course, there are not contemporary historical accounts )

Logged

"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas. Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me

Okay so who am I most likely to win against? Haha j/k. I'm not making excuses but I do lack experience with any sort of formal debate format. I have argued but never debated. I once said that if I stated the grass was green that someone would argue. I didn't go on to say that they would probably win, especially if it was Omen, but this is probably true.

I mean I basically need to learn how to formally debate. I will try to find some teaching aid about debating, but if I were to partake in such a debate I likely would require some direction throughout the debate. Would this be a problem?

« Last Edit: May 17, 2012, 03:49:10 PM by Jstwebbrowsing »

Logged

Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Dude, all you'd have to do is defend your arguments and/or punch holes in other people's arguments. That's all.

Say, for example, that I argued that people's beliefs altered the universe because the human mind can access the tenth dimension and make the strings vibrate at a different frequency, thus altering reality itself. What would you say in response to this?

Logged

My names are many, yet I am One.-Orion, son of Fire and Light, Sol Invictus.

I once said that if I stated the grass was green that someone would argue.

This was an insulting dismissive statement on your part, in order to avoid responding to requests that you support your claims.

Quote

I mean I basically need to learn how to formally debate. I will try to find some teaching aid about debating, but if I were to partake in such a debate I likely would require some direction throughout the debate. Would this be a problem?

You already know many fallacies:

Goal posts shifting is when you change the goal of the debate, red herrings occur when you respond by changing the subject.

Your statements about evolution were adequate strawmen, where you essentially make up a false characterization about something else in order to argue against that rather then the actual subject.

Your various statements regarding me were ad hominems, where you use personal attributes you assign to someone else in part of associating those attributes to their position.

Arguments from personal incredulity, such as it can't possibly be that way!

Logged

"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas. Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me

Well you did start in the very first post by insulting the people you hoped would respond. That didn't end up being a significant problem in the thread, though, as far as I can tell. The main problem wasn't the incivility, it was the lack of discussion from the person you'd directed the thread at.

How many times should a person ask for someone to support their position before it is not ok?

It's "not ok" the first time. Question is, what do you choose to do about it, and why? Hence my talk about goal/method and whether one of them might best be adjusted. Goals could be adjusted, as I pointed out, not just methods.

Is it ok if someone is threatened by being asked to support their claims to project that hostility on the one asking them, repeatedly?

Is it ok for a critical mass of U-235 to blow up violently? Is that even a useful question to ask, given that we can't change the fact? If someone feels threatened by being asked to support their claims, then perhaps asking them to support their claims is an irrational tool of communication. Do you disagree?

In theory yeah, but in practice no. I mean lawyers go to school for several years and learn the "art" of debate. If it were that simple as just prove your case then their schooling could be shortened.

For example I have noticed that I do tend to "dodge" but this is really not intentional and if I was a lawyer this would be a terrible disservice to my client. I guess it's just habit. I dunno. I just want a chance to clarify anything before I am tagged for "dodging" or for any other derogatory term.

But I will accept a one on one debate. Are you still available for a debate?

« Last Edit: May 17, 2012, 04:00:36 PM by Jstwebbrowsing »

Logged

Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.